CHATTANOOGA BOILER AND TANK COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM RITTENBERRY AND MONSANTO CORP. AND MONSANTO TEXTILES COMPANY, APPELLEES
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment notwithstanding verdict entered in favor of Monsanto, the employer of Rittenberry, following the entry of a verdict in favor of the third party tortfeasor, Chattanooga, on its claim for indemnity against Monsanto. Chattanooga had alleged Monsanto was actively negligent in causing certain injuries suffered by its employee, Rittenberry, during the course of employment, while Chattanooga was only passively negligent. There can be no claim for indemnity, under the circumstances, by a third party tortfeasor against an injured party’s employer. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Smith, 359 So. 2d 427 (Fla.1978).
The judgment notwithstanding verdict is AFFIRMED.
MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur. BOOTH, J., specially concurring.
BOOTH, Judge,
specially concurring.
The facts here do not bring cause within the rule of Home Indemnity v. Edwards, 360 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) and cases cited therein, therefore, I concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cassel v. Price, 396 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…8 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1977). See particularly specially concurring opinions of Judge Ervin in Mansur v. Eubanks, 368 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), and Bennett v. Mattison, 382 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), and dissenting opinion in Melton v. Estes, 379 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Compare with Zambito v. Southland Recreation Enterprises, 383 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980). . Jenkins v. City of Miami Beach, 389 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980), (summary judgment affirmed, no foreseeability); Phillips v. St…1 / 2
-
Horton v. Gulf Power Co., 401 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…e Judge, concurs. ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., specially concurs with written opinion. . Superior knowledge of the owner/contractee is basis of his duty to warn: Rist v. Florida Power and Light Company, 254 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1971); Melton v. Estes, 379 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Wendland v. Akers, 356 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1979); Ayala v. J. M. Fields, 390 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). . Florida Power and Light Company v. Price, 170 So. 2d 293, 297-298 (Fl…
-
Storr v. Proctor, 490 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…66 (Fla.1952). An owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own sense, and is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger. Melton v. Estes, 379 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Rice v. Florida Power & Light Co., 363 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). It is well settled that the property owners knowledge of a danger must be superior to that of the invitee in order to [*137] create a duty to warn of dangers…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Smith, 359 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1978)
- Home Indem. Co. v. Edwards, 360 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)